queer discourse

my opinions:

• i prefer queer as a catch-all over any version of the acronym due to it encompassing a wide range of shifting identities without tossing them under a plus. i see it as an academic term, an identity label and a political category.


• transsexual is a much sexier term than transgender to me. it rings closer to my personal experience as a trans man who sees his masculinity as queer. my umbrella term of choice is just trans.


• transmedicalism, respectability politics and assimilationist currents of thought in general are not productive for achieving queer liberation. some personal safety can be found in assimilation. but it is not productive as a generalised goal.


• indifferent towards microlabels and neopronouns in the sense that i do not use them. people claiming anything along the lines of /this is why the -phobes hate us/ about these are being ridiculous. we are all freaks to them no matter how palatable the label.


• labels can mean multiple things and be used by people in very different circumstances. this does not have to make sense to you. i hate linguistic perscriptivism.


• everyone should have access to whatever gender-affirming care they desire, regardless of their gender history. arguing about who is "trans enough" is bullshit.


• i personally cannot stand the terms afab/amab especially when used as nouns. tma/tme are on thin ice. these tweets by julia serano & her linked article echo some of my own thoughts. so i am not going to reinvent the wheel here.


• re: transandrophobia. personally i think the term is kind of clunky & prefer anti-transmasculinity because it is easier to parse at a glance. and also avoids some semantic pitfalls. but in any case having a term for people to describe their experiences & theorise can be useful.


• kink has a place at pride. no one arguing this in good faith means it in a /pride is open season for public sucking and fucking/ way. the sanitising of pride ultimately intends to make it more corporate-friendly and co-optable.